Posted on 10/20/2002 10:20:30 AM PDT by chance33_98
A Possible Move To Limit Smoking In Bars
Burlington, Vermont -- October 19, 2002
Several cities around the country have either enacted or proposed strict anti-smoking laws. Vermont struck a compromise that's been in effect for seven years now, although one case could revive the battle over smoking.
In 1993 governor Howard Dean signed Vermont's tobacco law banning smoking in publicly-accessible buildings. Bars and restaurants could permit smoking only if they obtained a special cabaret license. Some that did not meet the requirements for a cabaret license lost customers, although Kathleen Sweeten of the Vermont Lodging and Restaurant Association says those that got cabaret licenses tended to gain customers.
"So I think while the rooms and meals tax revenues would show that there was no significant impact," Sweeten says, "really it's just a shift in business from one restaurant to another."
For example, sources in the restaurant business say Sweetwaters in downtown Burlington stood to lose business unless it obtained a cabaret license. Some of that business could easily go to an establishment just across the street, the Ri-Ra Irish Pub, where smoking is prevalent.
Ri-Ra was doing a brisk business on Saturday afternoon and most of its customers were smoking. "It's a public facility, there shouldn't be a problem." Richard Hurtz, a smoker visiting from Worcester, Mass., told Channel 3. "There's non-smoking sections set up for people who don't enjoy smoking."
His friend Alicia Fitzgerald, a non-smoker from Worcester, agreed. "You have the choice to smoke or not smoke," she said. "To take that away from people, first of all if they were to take it away the bars would be a lot emptier."
After several years of no smoking, Sweetwaters got a cabaret license to allow smoking at the bar section of the restaurant. In many parts of the country that's not even an option. A growing number of cities, such as El Paso, Texas, and states -- including California and Maine -- have enacted outright bans on smoking in bars and restaurants. Boston is debating the same thing. Florida may try to follow California's example. In comparison, Vermont's law is moderate. But that could change. The state liquor board is considering rescinding Sweetwaters' cabaret license.
Sweeten explains the definition of what kind of establishment qualifies as a cabaret: "Fifty-one percent or more of your sales needs to come from the sale of alcoholic beverages, rather than food," she said.
It's not clear whether Sweetwaters meets the legal standard for a cabaret license, but the case could test the extent to which Vermont will try to limit smoking -- which could lead to a total ban on smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants.
Now, I like the smoke free environment personally, however I can't help but think there is a better solution.
Why not have designated smoking bars? In those bars, presumably the employees would all be smokers or persons who are not bothered by smoke. God bless them. This is a free country, and I resent the left's attempts to enforce health on us all. After all, I'm drinking alcohol in the first place, clearly "not healthy". Apparently I'm allowed to slowly pickle by liver while not being allowed to damage my lungs.
The widespread non-compliance of the law clearly points out it's absurdity. Until they can arrange for smokers, do not let this law pass in your state.
I take it that the yearly "Cabaret license," is a fancy word for 'BRIBE.'
There are many good solutions, but the anti smoking crowd won't hear of it.
I am reading. Thanks for the ping!
NO NO NO! Maine RESTAURANTS are smoke free. If they have a liquor license, they can have a smoking section. This is bogus. We have three bars/restaurants in our area where we go and spend our money. Who wrote this bogue lie!
Dear Andy,
Regarding your article “A Possible Move To Limit Smoking In Bars,”
In many parts of the country that's not even an option. A growing number of cities, such as El Paso, Texas, and states -- including California and Maine -- have enacted outright bans on smoking in bars and restaurants.
I live in northern Maine. All RESTAURANTS in Maine were forced to go smoke free. However, if they have a liquor license, they can have a smoking section. There are three restaurants/bars in our area that has smoking sections. That is where we spend our money.
Pat’s Pizza was forced to go smoke free for a year. They came real close to closing their doors. The owner bought a very expensive liquor license and now they are back in the money.
If the clientele and the business owner agree that a smoking ban would be better for a certain business, that is fair. But to have the government go into a private business and force them to go smoke free is not fair, and it’s unjust.
Restaurants across the United States are learning from California and Maine’s restaurants, and the owners are finally fighting and standing up for themselves.
Sincerely,
Thank you for your logic and your common sense approach. You're the textbook example of the difference between an anti-smoker and a nonsmoker. If there were no antis, smokers and nonsmokers could sit down together and figure out a way to accommodate everyone with a win/win solution. But antis won't allow it, and they are getting more powerful by the day.
We must not forget that Delaware will not even permit smoking in establishments with liquor licenses come November 27.
Moodyskeptic says: Now, I like the smoke free environment personally, however I can't help but think there is a better solution.
Why not have designated smoking bars? In those bars, presumably the employees would all be smokers or persons who are not bothered by smoke.
Thank you for your rational and reasonable take on the situation. That has been the position of most business owners and smokers I know.
Unfortuantly, those with the most money to make the most noise are those that are forcing these regulations down the throats of the business owners and refuse all ideas of compromise. In fact that word does not exist in the vocabulary, dictionary or playbooks of the true believers in smoking bans.
Dan writes:
I've never understood what makes secondhand smoke more dangerous if food is in the general vicinity. How does the smoke know the precise percentage of food sales, and why does it care?
That's some smart smoke they have in Vermont.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.